Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Heads Up Socal Freepers! Hearing: Obama Eligibility Tuesday Santa Ana,CA
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, SANTA ANA,CA

Posted on 09/04/2009 5:11:38 AM PDT by kellynla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
I confirmed the case, time & date with the court clerk's office yesterday. Hearing is open to the public but the courtroom capacity is only 85. Public parking across the street from the entrance to the courthouse. I will probably post another reminder Monday evening around 6. Mark your calendar and come if you possibly can. FYI, traffic is obviously a bear on all freeways and surface streets at that time of the a.m. so I suggest checking the traffic map and leave early.
1 posted on 09/04/2009 5:11:38 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla

what is the name of the case and who is the plaintiff please ?


2 posted on 09/04/2009 5:14:36 AM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Keyes et al vs. Obama et al


3 posted on 09/04/2009 5:17:34 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

In the future, “please” is the magic word around here. LOL


4 posted on 09/04/2009 5:18:19 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

thanks :)


5 posted on 09/04/2009 5:18:51 AM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
Captain Campbell is also one of the plaintiffs.
6 posted on 09/04/2009 5:19:38 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

do you know who he is ?


7 posted on 09/04/2009 5:20:35 AM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Can the judge “please” find BO ineligible to be President?


8 posted on 09/04/2009 5:20:44 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Pretty please with pink sugar on top!


9 posted on 09/04/2009 5:24:00 AM PDT by stickandrudder (Another Bitter-Clinger --------------- Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stickandrudder

“pwetty pwease” - bawney fwank


10 posted on 09/04/2009 5:29:18 AM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stickandrudder

Please with extra cheese!


11 posted on 09/04/2009 5:54:06 AM PDT by freebird5850 (O-Bomba is not the Messia. Jesus was a carpenter and could build a cabinet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

That’s BONNEY Fwank...


12 posted on 09/04/2009 5:55:00 AM PDT by Clioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

This hearing I thought had no bearing on the case itself but the questions on her filing?


13 posted on 09/04/2009 6:03:34 AM PDT by luv2ndamend (May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. — Samue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”


14 posted on 09/04/2009 6:16:08 AM PDT by Dryman ("FREE THE LONG FORM!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
So can someone please splain what can happen with this motion?
15 posted on 09/04/2009 7:29:33 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect NOBODY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Wow I just say the affidavit that Lucas Smith signed. He is going in this with the obvious threat of being jailed if he not truthful.....w0w


16 posted on 09/04/2009 7:33:55 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect NOBODY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
First, have to understand what motionS are at issue:

A. THE "DISCOVERY" MOTION
From the Judge's Order:
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s August 6, 2009 Order Striking Filed Documents from the Record and Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), filed with the Court on August 18, 2009, and noticed for a hearing on September 14, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. (the “Discovery Motion”). Despite the September 14, 2009 noticed hearing date, Plaintiffs request an “earlier and expedited” hearing on the Discovery Motion. Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the Court hereby sets a new hearing date on the matter for Tuesday, September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.

This Motion is Taitz's Motion to
(a) Review Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s Order that struck her motion to depose Hillary Clinton, require Clinton to produce passport documents and to issue a letters rogatory (a legal document that can help get documents in a foreign country -- if we have a treaty with them where they recognize the letters rogatory. (I'm fairly certain that we don't have such a treaty with Kenya.). Nakazato did not consider that motion "on the merits." Instead, he struck the motion from the record, citing multiple errors in filing.

So at the hearing, the Parties will get to argue to the judge whether Nakazato was correct to strike the motion from the record or whether he should have considered the motion on the merits, because the motion had no errors (or.. something. I'm not sure what given that she filed an amended pleading (WHICH IS NOT AT ISSUE IN THIS HEARING) "correcting" the errors.

(b) Recuse Nakazato from the case. Here, Taitz argues that Nakazato's actions in strking the motion for "hypertechnical" reasons shows that he is biased against her case. Therefore, she wants him recused from the case. Given that she filed an amended pleading correcting the errors, I think this part of the motion is going to to hard for her to make. How can she say that he was wrong to apply the rules to her when her amended pleading shows that she really DID make errors in the first one?

In any event, at the hearing, the parties will get to argue whether Nakazato's actions show his bias and, if so, whether he should be recused from the case (i.e., have another magistrate judge assigned to handle discovery issues.)

B. SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT
From the Judge's Order:
In addition, the Government filed with this Court on August 19, 2009, a Notice of Failure by Plaintiffs to Properly Effect Service of Process (the “Service Notice”). By the Service Notice, the Government represents that the United States Attorney’s Office is willing to accept service of process on behalf of all named Defendants “if Plaintiffs would properly file and serve the First Amended Complaint and Summons.” See Service Notice at 4 (emphasis in original). While the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed with the Court on July 15, 2009,1 it appears that Plaintiffs still have failed to serve both the FAC and Summons on the United States Attorney’s Office, despite its willingness to accept service of process on behalf of all Defendants. As such, Plaintiffs are ordered to properly serve the FAC and Summons on the United States Attorney’s Office on or before September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.

So, here, the Judge was telling her that she STILL hadn't correctly served the defendants, and ordered her to do so by the 8th. (I think she did so, although her proof of service has some errors.

So, at the hearing, I don't think the parties will have anything to argue about - this should be a nonissue now.

C. ROBINSON/DRAKE APPLICATION
From the Judge's Order:
Finally, On August 19, 2009, the Court received an Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (the “Ex Parte Application”) on behalf of Plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Dr. Wiley S. Drake (the “Moving Plaintiffs”), through their attorney, Gary G. Kreep. The Moving Plaintiffs also seek to file their Ex Parte Application under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. The Moving Plaintiffs essentially contend that when they sought to substitute Gary Kreep as counsel due to their dissatisfaction with Dr. Orly Taitz, Ms. Taitz improperly and without their consent filed a voluntary dismissal of them from the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). See Doc. No. 33. As such, they seek reconsideration of the voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Court finds that this matter is not appropriate for resolution on an ex parte basis. Nor does this matter warrant filing documents under seal. Therefore, the Court also sets this matter for hearing on September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m. At the scheduled hearing time, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the merits of their dispute and to resolve both the motion for reconsideration as well as the substitution of counsel.

So, at the hearing, the Parties will get to argue whether Taitz's actions in filing the "Voluntary Dismissal" of Robinson and Drake, without their knowledge or permission, was improper and whether they can substitute Gary Kreep as their counsel and stay in the case.
17 posted on 09/04/2009 7:49:10 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

So can someone please splain what can happen with this motion?


I just gave the details, with the Judge’s order text included. Now, here’s the “upshot”

A. THE “DISCOVERY MOTION”:
This motion is, essentially, Taitz v. Nakazato. IF Taitz wins this motion then Nakazato will be recused and Carter, or more likely, a different Magistrate Judge will decide her amended discovery motion that she filed on August 20 — AFTER the defendants have an opportunity to file objections. If she loses, then Nakazato will decide her amended Aug 20 motion — again — AFTER the defendants (who were not yet even served with the Complaint when she filed the motion) have an opportunity to file an objection.

SO — will the Judge decide on September 8 whether Taitz gets her requested discovery? NO. He’ll decide what judge is going to decide whether Taitz gets her requested discovery.

B. SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT.
As I said, I think this is going to be a non-issue as I think Taitz properly served the defendants on August 25.

C. THE ROBINSON/DRAKE APPLICATION
This motion is, essentially, Taitz v. Robinson/Drake. If Taitz wins this application (which is being treated as a motion now), then Robinson and Drake are dismissed from the case. If Taitz loses this motion, then, at a minimum, Robinson and Drake get to stay in the case, and get to have Gary Kreep represent them. Whether Taitz gets sanctioned for impropriety with respect to clients is an unknown. IF Robinson/Drake’s allegations are true, then sanctions are possible because the California Bar rules prohibit an attorney from doing what they allege that she did.


18 posted on 09/04/2009 8:00:26 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

Thank you!

Taitz just filed an Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate with the court yesterday.
I don’t “think” this BC has ever been revealed before.
There is a copy of the filing & the BC on her blog.


19 posted on 09/04/2009 8:07:55 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Actually the Lucas Smith BC (which contradicts the prior Kenyan BC she also has submitted in CA and in the Rhodes case) was rather conclusively debunked by WND last week.

See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108005 and http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108773


20 posted on 09/04/2009 8:10:25 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson